Why does it *seem* that so many people are not running LR 6/LR 2015 CC?

[PhilBurton]

It seems that a lot of posts are from people running old versions of Lightroom and asking why their newly purchased camera body or lens isn't supported, or else they are just having some general problem.

Is this "sample bias," which is a subtle point that could mean in this case that the people who are up to date with LR are more skilled as a group with LR than people who are not up to date? ( I have no idea if this is true or not, I'm just using this as one possible source of sample bias.) Is it because their computer dates from 2004? Or is it some other reason? Which is ..... ?

Here is my reasoning: Most of here are either serious amateurs or professionals. We spend many hundreds if not thousands of dollars or euros or pounds on a new Nikon/Canon/Sony body and a like amount several times for lenses. However, we seem unwilling to invest a fraction of that amount for proper software, which is a key part of the image creation process, . A Lightroom upgrade is a fraction of the cost of a new lens. Heck, a new Nikon lens cap costs the same as the monthly subscription to CC.

Phil

 

[clee01l]

I think the answer to your question is "Squeaky Wheel". I think people show up here for two reasons: They have a problem. Or they like to answer LR questions. You never see people here that don't have issues with LR unless they fall into the latter group. Those that do have LR issues are probably casual LR users. Sometimes with minimal training. Having the latest/greatest is not important to them and as long as their version of LR is meeting their needs, they don't see a need to upgrade. What spurs an upgrade is usually a new camera that suddenly reveals the inadequacies of their ancient version of LR. So casual users simply have other priorities. As long as LR is working for them, they are content. When they have a problem, then we see them. The "squeaky wheel" gets the grease.

 

[Nogo]

Many of us don't want another monthly bill. Simple as that. I personally preferred to spend about $100.00 one time for LR and $500.00 for CS6. I know it will take years at $10.00 a month to equal the one time purchases but I literally despise feeling like I "owe" even one more bill for basically the rest of my life.

When I must upgrade because of having a new camera I only plan to purchase whatever the current Lightroom is at that time. I have no intention of ever updating CS6.

 

[clee01l]

Many of us don't want another monthly bill. Simple as that. I personally preferred to spend about $100.00 one time for LR and $500.00 for CS6. I know it will take years at $10.00 a month to equal the one time purchases but I literally despise feeling like I "owe" even one more bill for basically the rest of my life.

When I must upgrade because of having a new camera I only plan to purchase whatever the current Lightroom is at that time. I have no intention of ever updating CS6.

It is quite possible that you have a Cable TV subscription, an internet subscription, a mobile cell phone subscription or an landline phone that you pay for monthly. In addition to that you have an electricity bill and maybe even a natural gas bill. An Adobe subscription is no different. And just like a Microsoft Office subscription. If you don't need these other subscriptions you can simply quit. The same is true with Adobe.
So far you can always buy the latest standalone version of LR (LR6.5.1) No one is forced into an Adobe subscription but you can upgrade and pay for the latest standalone release. I think this is the question that Phil is asking: "Why don't people upgrade?" An Adobe subscription has nothing to do with the question.

 

[PhilBurton]

............ I think this is the question that Phil is asking: "Why don't people upgrade?" An Adobe subscription has nothing to do with the question.

Exactly. Notice the title of this thread. By the way, I'm one of those people on the perpetual subscription. When I did the upgrade from LR 4.4, the perpetual upgrade priced out to 8 months of CC subscription. But my question was directed at people still on LR 4 or 3 or even earlier.

Phil

 

[Johan Elzenga]

I checked the last 20 threads or so, and what I noticed is quite different. There are very few people here who are still using LR4 or earlier. Some still use LR5, but the clear majority uses LR6 or CC. None of the last 20 threads is about why an older version of LR doesn't support a new camera. That question is asked from time to time, but it's not as frequent as you may think.

 

[Replytoken]

I also suspect that some people are fatigued from "just another subscription" being added to their monthly budget. Granted, you can purchase v.6.x, but with that version, it is my understanding that Adobe installs software that "phones home" as they changed their licensing agreement. And, like "just one more subscription", some folks are not really keen about one more process running at start-up. While I suspect that most folks just accept these changes, some are just a bit more averse to change for a number of reasons. I will probably upgrade to v.6.x or CC in the near future, but the draw will be the features and not the payment model. If I ran a business with numerous employees, I might think otherwise, but as a singe license user, there is not much there for me. Having said that, I do applaud Adobe for offering an affordable package for those of us in the US, and that the user has some control over upgrades. There is nothing worse than being on deadline and having a serious software issue from a release that was not fully vetted.

--Ken

 

[Jim Wilde]

Having said that, I do applaud Adobe for offering an affordable package for those of us in the US

Why only in the US, Ken?

 

[PhilBurton]

I also suspect that some people are fatigued from "just another subscription" being added to their monthly budget. Granted, you can purchase v.6.x, but with that version, it is my understanding that Adobe installs software that "phones home" as they changed their licensing agreement. And, like "just one more subscription", some folks are not really keen about one more process running at start-up. While I suspect that most folks just accept these changes, some are just a bit more averse to change for a number of reasons. I will probably upgrade to v.6.x or CC in the near future, but the draw will be the features and not the payment model. If I ran a business with numerous employees, I might think otherwise, but as a singe license user, there is not much there for me. Having said that, I do applaud Adobe for offering an affordable package for those of us in the US, and that the user has some control over upgrades. There is nothing worse than being on deadline and having a serious software issue from a release that was not fully vetted.

--Ken

Ken,

The "phone home" is part of the overall trend with software companies to (1) check for updates and (2) enforce licencing to cut down on piracy. Lots of major software companies follow this practice, at least in the Windows world. I don't know anything about the Apple world.

I guess I didn't explain myself well enough in my original question. People spend hundreds, many hundreds or even thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but seem reluctant to spend US $79 on the upgrade to LR 6 perpetual, or US $10 for the CC plan (which I don't do personally). Seems "unbalanced." An analogy would be buying a top of the line Nikon or Canon pro body and then using off brand third party lenses or a really flimsy tripod.

By the way, Adobe did not pay me to start this thread. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Phil

 

[Replytoken]

Why only in the US, Ken?

I was under the impression that the $9.99USD/mo. photography plan was not available at the same rate in all countries. If it is, then kudos to Adobe for do so.

--Ken

 

[Jim Wilde]

Well, it's sort of the equivalent all over the world, Ken....but here in the UK we have to add VAT which means I pay £8.57 per month, which is a little bit more than $9.99 but still a great deal.

 

[Replytoken]

Ken,

The "phone home" is part of the overall trend with software companies to (1) check for updates and (2) enforce licencing to cut down on piracy. Lots of major software companies follow this practice, at least in the Windows world. I don't know anything about the Apple world.

I guess I didn't explain myself well enough in my original question. People spend hundreds, many hundreds or even thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but seem reluctant to spend US $79 on the upgrade to LR 6 perpetual, or US $10 for the CC plan (which I don't do personally). Seems "unbalanced." An analogy would be buying a top of the line Nikon or Canon pro body and then using off brand third party lenses or a really flimsy tripod.

By the way, Adobe did not pay me to start this thread. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Phil

While I aware of trend to "phone home" and the concern over piracy, I still find many of these solutions to contribute to software bloatware. For example, I look at my battery usage on my cellphone and see apps that have not been used in some time suddenly consuming large amounts of battery time "phoning home". Some companies are able to do it in a reasonably efficient manner with a little and infrequent hit on the hardware, and some just seem to take over. As I have not upgraded, I cannot say how much of a hit Adobe's software is, but I do remember seeing a number of complaints on the forum when it was first implemented. What I would appreciate would be some type of reactivation reminder inside the program that I can activate when it is convenient for me (within some reasonable time frame). Does Adobe really need to load up and activate every time I start my machine, even if I am not using LR? I grant you that others do the same, and with the exception of my anti-virus which needs its updates to remain effective, I am not that pleased with those programs as well.

Regarding not updating being unbalanced, I am not sure your analogy is fully accurate. If the tools that I have are doing the job, why do I need to update? The newest version does not really have that many features that I need, newer versions often need more processing power, and often they are more of a problem until their bugs are worked out. The latest versions of LR are a great example of the latter. When was the last time that Adobe had to fully backtrack on an "upgrade" and return a feature to LR (i.e. import screen)?

One could turn the above analogy on its head and say that buying the latest software does not necessarily make one a better photographer, and is therefore a less than ideal use of money. I say this in jest, because I understand what you are driving after, but I also know very talented folks who do all kinds of unorthodox things, and yet output work that I could only dream about on my best days. In short, I do not think that upgrading is solely a function of economics, and not all upgrades improve output. Of course, YMMV.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

Well, it's sort of the equivalent all over the world, Ken....but here in the UK we have to add VAT which means I pay £8.57 per month, which is a little bit more than $9.99 but still a great deal.

I thought our friends "down under" did not get quite as good of an offer, but I could be mistaken. As I said, if it is equivalent, then I give Adobe credit for making it so.

--Ken

 

[wirrah]

I thought our friends "down under" did not get quite as good of an offer, but I could be mistaken.

I was paying $AUD9.99 per month. It recently was raised to $AUD11.99pm which is more inline with US dollar price. I think we had a bargain!

 

[rob211]

Some people see their digital equipment like their lawnmowers. They buy it and the needed accessories, and fergeddaboutit. Until something breaks.

Then they say upgrade the camera, so then they upgrade the software and maybe computer hardware, and then fergeddaboutit again.

Obviously they don't care about interim upgrades as much, and buying software this way can save money since you can skip whole version upgrades. Big outfits like Adobe, MS, Apple etc are always competing against themselves in this regard, since their installed base is loyal to their older versions and may not wanna upgrade due to cost, cost/benefit, fear of Zombie Apocalypse inside their computer, or whatever.

It's a valid strategy. Sorta like people who buy a DSLR and two lenses and then never anything else cuz that's all they need. But it can lead to some lurchy movement forward, as opposed to the diligent upgraders (of both equipment and software).

I've always seen my software (and even hardware) more like the ongoing cost of business, and budget for upgrading all of it over time. But I had experience doing that in business (although I don't now), so it's just a more familiar way for me to proceed. As an example, the fiscal conservative in me would ALWAYS pay by the month instead of giving say Adobe bigger money upfront. Why should I loan them money? So I have the opposite visceral reaction to stuff like subscription models.

 

[Goughy]

Well, it's sort of the equivalent all over the world, Ken....but here in the UK we have to add VAT which means I pay £8.57 per month, which is a little bit more than $9.99 but still a great deal.

For US states with sales tax, it is added automatically by Adobe. So here in S. Utah I pay $10.62 per month and in Los Angeles it would be around $10.89.